A few questions about learning to purely read Latin (not to write or speak, just read/understand) from both books I and II (as they are pretty much a continuation of each other):

1. Is it possible to get through the first book, or both books in 2 months of studying each day? How long would it took per day to get through either both or just the first? (given I will be also studying Italian intensely with a background of intermediate French)

2. What level does the finishing the first book get me to? Or is it only until finished both that one is able to read texts of Latin?

If this is impossible to say, how would, for example, one go about being able to translate each line of this into English perfectly with minimal use of a dictionary (you are given that lixa = camp-follower; proboscis, proboscidis 3 feminine = trunk; stridor = trumpeting)

Would this require finishing of both the books? How long would one take using Lingua to get to reading and translating texts to that level?

Another example to what level i would hope to be reaching is parts of Aeneid with text like "ocius advertunt proras urbique propinquant. forte die sollemnem illo rex Arcas honorem Amphitryoniadae magno divisque ferebat ante urbem in luco. Pallas huic filius una, una omnes iuvenum primi pauperque senatus tura dabant, tepidusque cruor fumabat ad aras." and then answering questions like "Why has Aeneas come to this place? Who has explained to him the significance of the rites described in this passage?" and "What prayer is uttered in lines 17–18, and by what title is the deity, to whom it is made, addressed?"

Thanks & sorry for all the text!

VEXX.

To just let you know, i'd hope to come close to that Level in 2-3 months of Lingua (Dec-Feb) and then i begin final year Latin that goes for 8months, where a final exam at the end is that level (they are from one of our past exams). So hopefully i can get there But i'd only have to do that 2-3 months because i am assessed before i begin the course to see if i am high enough level to begin, so it's important i can read texts and translate well!

Vexx wrote:Is it possible to get through the first book, or both books in 2 months of studying each day?

Yes. I got through Lingua Latina I in a much shorter time, but then, I had already studied all 40 chapters of Wheelock. If you're starting from zero knowledge of Latin, it will take you considerably longer than it took me, but I couldn't tell you how long. A chapter every day or two seems well within the realm of possibility for a diligent student, though.

Vexx wrote:2. What level does the finishing the first book get me to?

After the first book you will be reading unadulterated Latin written by real Latin authors, whether you move on to Book II or you move to the Lingua Latina edition of Caesar's De Bello Gallico (which is what I'm doing). Of course, the text is still selected and heavily annotated to match your experiences with Book I... you're not expected to be able to pick up just any Latin text and read it without help.

Vexx wrote:If this is impossible to say, how would, for example, one go about being able to translate each line of this into English perfectly with minimal use of a dictionary

I cannot do this yet. (My level is, basically, having finished the 40 chapters of Wheelock and Lingua Latina I. I've yet to read much of Caesar.) I can tell that with a dictionary and a lot of thought I could probably nail it or at least get pretty close, though -- most of the words are pretty familiar and I do have a very rough idea of what it's talking about.

By far the biggest obstacle to learning Latin (or, really, any language) is vocabulary. It takes quite a lot of time and effort to build up enough vocabulary to be able to read an arbitrary text with minimal use of a dictionary. Unfortunately, you're not going to get that from just a couple of introductory texts -- though they can give you a pretty solid start!

Vexx wrote:Another example to what level i would hope to be reaching is parts of Aeneid

This I would not count on. Latin poetry tends to break my brain (except for the works of Martial, which tend to be more striaghtforward to me). On top of this, the Aeneid is written in a style befitting an epic -- i.e., flowerly language that's difficult to understand. You might have an easier time with Latin poetry than I do, but then, you might not.

Thank you so much!But more questions..- How long did it take you (days + how long per day) to finish book I? Will doing book 2 take longer than 2-3months then or could i just do one chapter per day and finish both within 3 months..Or will i not process everything and i'll need time to review and that? (also remember i'll be learning Italian at the same time)- After book I should i then do that Caeser book instead of moving straight on to book II? Or come back to that a bit later? Or doesn't it matter?- Is Wheelock worth doing if all i'm aiming for is reading Latin? How long does this take (days+how longer per did it take for you)? Should I do this before the two Books, or can i do Book I and Book II and then Wheelocks to fill in anything i may have missed?

Haha, well a part of my exam is going to be on Aeneid, bit i have ~9months from when i start Italian to get to that level! I will need to learn how to analyse the metaphors, and other literary techniques in that:|

Vexx wrote:- How long did it take you (days + how long per day) to finish book I?

I'm probably not the best person to ask, unless you've done Wheelock or a comparable course already, since otherwise my experience wouldn't be similar to yours. (I found Lingua Latina much harder before Wheelock than afterward.) I also didn't keep track. Perhaps somebody else could answer, though...

Vexx wrote:Will doing book 2 take longer than 2-3months then or could i just do one chapter per day and finish both within 3 months..Or will i not process everything and i'll need time to review and that? (also remember i'll be learning Italian at the same time)

I don't have a copy of Book II, so I only have a vague idea of what it's actually like. So I guess somebody else will have to answer that one.

- After book I should i then do that Caeser book instead of moving straight on to book II? Or come back to that a bit later? Or doesn't it matter?

I chose Caesar over Book II for now because it interests me more. Beyond that I don't think there's much reason for preferring one over the other, though the Caesar book is much shorter (it's only excerpts from De Bello Gallico, not the whole thing). It's about 75 pages, compared to Book I's 300 or so pages (I don't know how long Book II is, but I presume it's similar in length to Book I).

Like I said, I don't really keep track of that sort of thing. I just study when I feel like studying. In one sense it took me over a year to get through Wheelock's, but that was because I was very busy. The actual effort was generally one chapter a day -- by "doing" a chapter I mean making flash cards out of all the sentences in the chapter and putting them into Anki. This process usually took a while, but I think it was worth it.

I did find Wheelock's to be pretty helpful, but you could certainly use other resources in its place, or even try going through Lingua Latina without other resources at all (though I do recommend having at least a dictionary -- I typically use Whitaker's Words and Lewis & Short online, and I have a copy of Cassell's for those cases where those two fail me or I don't have computer access).

Latin texts, like all other languages, vary tremendously in difficulty. If you get through all of the first book of Lingua Latina diligently, you should have no problem reading authentic Latin texts on the easier end of the scale, typically prose, like the Caesar you quote. You may need a dictionary in hand, though. Most modern Latin authors, like the Harry Potter above are even easier than that, neologisms aside. I find poetry, much, much harder though. And most of Vergil is at the difficult end of the Latin poetry commonly read (though certainly worth the effort!)

So, how long to finish LL? Well, that depends on a lot of factors. If you've had no Latin before, and no previous study of inflected languages, two months seems rather ambitious to me. This is doubly challenging if you are studying a related language at the same time.

Comparing to a traditional University structure, many college programs have you reading Caeser after two semesters. So, you want to cram two semesters of work into two months. It can be done, but it will be a lot of work. My estimate, knowing nothing about your background, is that you would need to put in much more than an hour a day, every day, with no time off for weekends or vacations.

So 2months with over an hour/day to finish both books? or just the first one?Oh wow though, already able to read some of the easier texts after that one book !! Perhaps start attempting Harrius Potter after;)Will the second book then enable me upon completion to read Aeneid? (i have a few more months after the intensive to get better at this though, so not needing to be that good after 3 months at poetry interpretation in latin)... or was that comment about it still being really difficult including after reading the second..?

Is it worth getting the Wheelock's as a guide to grammar? Or will this not be needed if i just go through the LL books.. If it is useful, should i be using it before, after or during the books?

I'm reasonably good at Latin (a year's worth, including Wheelock's, including the unadapted texts at the back, and unadapted bits of Pliny, Sallus, Cicero, Vergil* and the Res Gestae) and I can read that in about ten minutes, getting most of the grammar and maybe 70% of the words (and the ones I don't know I can work out from context). The initial passage you gave is confusing (mostly vocab-wise), and like furrykef I can't get too much more out of it than that there's an elephant, and there are tusks and sadness involved, and a soldier does something to it with a sword.

*As to Vergil - with a good commentary, I quite enjoyed it and found it easier than Sallust. I was translating rather than observing poetic devices, but my commentary pointed the latter out, and I can't imagine that someone good enough to read the elephant passage would struggle with it.

I'm reasonably good at Latin (a year's worth, including Wheelock's, including the unadapted texts at the back, and unadapted bits of Pliny, Sallus, Cicero, Vergil* and the Res Gestae) and I can read that in about ten minutes, getting most of the grammar and maybe 70% of the words (and the ones I don't know I can work out from context). The initial passage you gave is confusing (mostly vocab-wise), and like furrykef I can't get too much more out of it than that there's an elephant, and there are tusks and sadness involved, and a soldier does something to it with a sword.

*As to Vergil - with a good commentary, I quite enjoyed it and found it easier than Sallust. I was translating rather than observing poetic devices, but my commentary pointed the latter out, and I can't imagine that someone good enough to read the elephant passage would struggle with it.

Oh so if I finish the pars I of LL then I won't be able to read Harrius Potter? Would i need to finish Pars II then for that level?Aww, i was excited about finishing pars I and then starting it! I guess i can wait to get through the second pars though.I'll get Wheelock's just in case then as i need a good reference for grammar when going through LL. (maybe i won't)

I think i can probably finish the LL pars II in just over the month, as it's roughly 8.5 pages per day that i hope i can keep up! And then i wonder how long Pars II will take to get through it? If did some just reading and understanding per day (no writing out lines, or verbally trying to pronounce) could i finish it in like 60 days? So about 7 pages per day?

Oh so if I finish the pars I of LL then I won't be able to read Harrius Potter?

You probably could, but you'd likely need a dictionary (or, at the very least, cross-reference with a copy in the original English) and you'd probably need to ask the occasional question here (or at WordReference) on fine points of vocabulary and grammar.

Whether it's a good idea to try this depends on your motives, I suppose. If you'd love to read rather than study the book, I'd be more inclined to save it for later. For this reason I'm not currently reading the poems of Martial, even though reading them is pretty much my ultimate goal with Latin: I want to be able to actually enjoy them, which is difficult to do when you have to study it just to understand it.

If, on the other hand, you want to use Harrius Potter as a means rather than an end, you might well find it a lot more enjoyable than trying to decipher ancient Latin authors, so by all means, give it a try after Book I. If it's too hard then, try it after Book II.

Dominus and domina do not mean Mr and Ms. It means lord/lady/master/mistress. It's what slaves would use. A Roman would rarely call another free Roman a dominus or a domina.

But the Dursleys, of course, aren't Romans - it's clearly an attempt to translate the English practice of calling people Mr and Mrs (i.e. Master and Mistress). Just as you wouldn't translate one of Cicero's speeches as talking about "Mr Catiline", surely it's just as much of an anachronism to go in the opposite direction and translate "Mr Dursley" as "Vernonis Dursleius"?

But the Dursleys, of course, aren't Romans - it's clearly an attempt to translate the English practice of calling people Mr and Mrs (i.e. Master and Mistress).

No, I mean that it doesn't mean our equivalent of Mr and Ms. It just means something different in Latin. You wouldn't do it in Roman times, you wouldn't do it in Medieval times, and I don't think you would do it in our times either.

Why do you need to call people Mr and Ms in Latin in the first place? Or rather, how would you do it? There are some aspects of English or modern English social structures, that has no equivalence in Latin. And vice versa. I'd just say coniuges or mariti Dursley. And just use the first name when Mr/Ms Dursley is used in English.

(I am of course not deeply acquainted with the history of dominus/a, but its usage as time passed must have indeed matched in some close manner the English "Mr". To prove this it would be enough to pay attention to the Italian word for woman: "donna" (dom(i)na); and even more notably Spanish/Portuguese don/m & dona (as terms of respect).)

Nooj wrote:There are some aspects of English or modern English social structures, that has no equivalence in Latin. And vice versa. I'd just say coniuges or mariti Dursley. And just use the first name when Mr/Ms Dursley is used in English.

I still think that that's as anachronistic as translating "Marcus Tullius Cicero" as "Mr Mark T. Cicero", or "senatus" as "Parliament" - Harrius Potter is very consciously modern Latin, and the language needs to be updated to reflect the fact that it's about 1990s Britain, and thus includes modern British social structures, not Republican Rome - but it's not exactly a big deal.

But the Dursleys, of course, aren't Romans - it's clearly an attempt to translate the English practice of calling people Mr and Mrs (i.e. Master and Mistress).

No, I mean that it doesn't mean our equivalent of Mr and Ms. It just means something different in Latin. You wouldn't do it in Roman times, you wouldn't do it in Medieval times, and I don't think you would do it in our times either.

Why do you need to call people Mr and Ms in Latin in the first place? Or rather, how would you do it? There are some aspects of English or modern English social structures, that has no equivalence in Latin. And vice versa. I'd just say coniuges or mariti Dursley. And just use the first name when Mr/Ms Dursley is used in English.

Books translated from English almost always include the mr and mrs. In the Swedish and the German edition, they're called Mr. and Mrs., not Herr and Frau or Herr and Fru. In Sweden the use of those titles are extinct, yet the do not remove them in a translation, because they find it an essential part of English culture, thus necessary for the understanding of the book. The fact that it's translated is perhaps due to the high inflectioness of Latin . Pretty hard to decline Mr.

And, Latin is not a language only spoken by the Romans, but also by the educated elite during the dark ages and re renaissance, and by scientists trough the enligtenment. During those times, they probably used some way of showing respect - I am not sure weather it was Dominus, or some other word, but I'm pretty sure they were not tu with eatchother.

Anyhow, I think it's really scary how people forget that latin for a longer period than the roman empire existed have spoken latin as a second language for means of communication beyond their native. It's just as an important part of latinity as Cicero – no matter what the 19th century philologists ever will say.

"Dominus" was indeed used in post-classical Latin much similar to the English "Mr." Just search on books.google.com for "Dominus" followed by a name. E.gr. "Dominus Iohannes", "Dominus Erasmus", etc. It was often abbreviated to "D."